Judicial Hypocrisy - Nude Photos Of Kids Okay For 1% To Take, But Not For 99%?

0

0

December 19, 2013

A photo a a naked child will send some to jail, while others create stars and are accepted. The truth of a broken system that serves the minority and not the majority.

A court system that was set up by the minority, to govern like royalty without penalties for those who consider themselves in a class by themselves.

When immunity can be given to a president for the war crimes committed in an act many are calling treason, how can charges and a waste of taxpayer money and news support injustice?

If justice has allowed several to walk away with murder, then what is the reason for a prison system? To profit from those that do not have the blood of the Illuminati which is carried through history in name.

A government along with a judicial system and no one on the same page, looking more and more everyday beyond repair. Courts around the world in different counties, villages, states, and provinces continue to favor those with the most in identical cases with those having less.

The majority of the 1% pay a fine and do no time, and the 99% even innocent have had to spend what they didn't have to prove their innocence in a system as history shows has always been governed by those whose families come from royal backgrounds.

If they are from color then they are descendants of a 1% slave or British citizen of the US...all in the history Americans aren't taught.

A married mother from Missouri is facing a child endangerment charge after police said she was photographed topless in a hot tub along with her half-naked 14-year-old daughter.

The 50-year-old woman, of Wentzville, is not being named to protect her daughter's identity.

The photo that landed the mother in trouble with the law was taken November 14 with the 14-year-old's phone by her sister, according to charging documents. The topless snapshot was posted on the social media app SnapChat and was circulated around two high schools in the Rockwood School District.

St Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lohmar told St Louis Post-Dispatch that 50-year-old woman told police she had no idea her topless shot will be distributed online.

When the 1% owned police and judicial system want to hold a parent who didn't even take the pictures or know about them though a system to milk her dollars, it is time for change. When the 1% can condom a photographer taking pictures of a girl 10 years old completely nude to make her a star and the world is okay with that, then it is clear how sick those who control it really are.

A star who is all grown up that most around the world know, and not one person from the 1% has blasted this photographer, but just the opposite...embraced him!

Below are Richard Prince’s thoughts on the famous Brooke Shields nude photo that was taken when she was 10 years old.

Gary Gross who originally took the photograph finds himself in court ten after he took the picture fighting over who owns the rights to the picture.

Terrie, Brooke Shields’ mother recognizes what this picture could possibly suggest, (not about Brooke, but about her). In a word:”pimp”. When the picture was taken, Brooke was ten years old but Gary Gross made her head up to look like an older woman. Then he went to the trouble of oiling her body to heighten and refract the presence of her “he-she” adolescence. Now we’ve got a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it’s got a different birthday.

We’ve got a couple of million dollars in court costs and another possibility of million in projected sales from a poster that Gross is trying to sell of his image of Brooke.

You’ve got the management of an image, the questions of ownership of an image; finally you’ve got a big celebrity, someone who turned out to be the princess of the United States. And it’s all happening because of the truth or consequences of a photograph. The ecstasy of communication. It sounds like a bizarre game show. I don’t know if any of the principals involved recognize exactly where the heart of the darkness is located.

But I began to see the “picture” as a patriotic one, that is to say if I was to have heard that this type of activity over a photograph was happening in another country I would have considered moving there. What I did next was exhibit the image. I tried to provide a counter environment.

I matched the picture to refer to the outer facts rather than making my own picture which would have involved only inner facts.

I titled the picture: By Richard Prince, A Photograph of Brooke Shields by Garry Gross. Not unlike McNeil’s title:

“Arrangement in Black and White” which the public ironically personalized into the title Whistler’s Mother.

Link below to the rest of the story and how it is okay for children to be photographed it they have connections to those in the 1% like the Shield's family that carries the blood of royalty.

The 99% still playing the roles of the whipping boy for the 1% who pay and walk and are honored by name.